|
I was so impressed (not in a good way) with this image of a science article (submitted in 1980) by Dessler and Russell about Pluto's mass wasting that I decided to type it into a digital format. At first, I thought it was a bit of a tongue in cheek spoofing representation of Pluto but the more I read, the more I realized these two prominent scientists were dead serious. Image of the single page article >>>>>>>>>>> Below: typed copy in .docx format with original image.
Med size, needs MS Word, all images and formatting available. 
Below: typed copy in .rtf format with images of author's
Large size, multiplatform viewability, some formating,
Below: typed copy in .txt format without images.
Small size, little to no formatting, universally viewable 
|
| ||||||
The general gist of the paper is that since Pluto's first postulated existence in 1848 to its then current (1980) observations, Pluto has been getting smaller (wasting away) and that by 1984 it would completely disappear. But then Pluto would reappear in 2256. This then was their premise behind why NASA should immediately initiate a program to send a probe to Pluto as it would disappear shortly and we would miss our opportunity to study it for another 270 years.
Don't laugh, they are dead serious about this and they have scientific evidence (math) to back it up.
I can hear your thoughts now, OK, OK these guys were living in the stone age all the way back 38 years ago and so can be forgiven for thinking such naive thoughts but hold on to your spurs cowboy.
Don't laugh, they are dead serious about this and they have scientific evidence (math) to back it up.
I can hear your thoughts now, OK, OK these guys were living in the stone age all the way back 38 years ago and so can be forgiven for thinking such naive thoughts but hold on to your spurs cowboy.
|
Just 3 months before we arrived at Pluto (April 2015) another paper was written by M. Lund supporting this Dessler/Russell concept that Pluto was rapidly wasting away.
Pluto was seen as a comet rapidly sublimating its volatile ices. This is likely why our estimates of Pluto's evaporating atmosphere were so grossly over exaggerated prior to arrival. I'm getting ahead of myself, lets take a closer look at this paper's conclusions and rational behind them. First let's meet the authors.
|
Pluto's expected atmosphere vs actual
| ||
|
2015 paper
>>>>>>>>>>> Michael B. Lund Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN Ph.D., Physics, Spring 2017 Thesis Topic: Transiting Planets with LSST Research Interests: Extrasolar Planets, Transiting planets, Time-domain surveys Has written over a dozen refereed journal publications. |
|
|
1980 paper
<<<<<<<<<<<< Dr. Alexander J. Dessler Professor of Space Physics and Astronomy at Rice University in 1963. Selected as the chairman of Rice's Department of Space Physics and Astronomy, making him founder of the nation's first Space Science department. Dessler was awarded with the John Adam Fleming Medal for original research and technical leadership in science in 1993. |
|
1980 paper
>>>>>>>>>>>> Christopher T. Russell Professor of Geophysics and Space Physics in the Department of Earth and Space Sciences and the Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics (Space Science Center), at UCLA. Fellow of American Geophysical Union, American Association of the Advancement of Science, Royal Astronomical Society, Macelwane Award, American Geophysical Union |
|
|
Quote from Dessler and Russell paper.
Pluto is so distant that it is difficult to learn much about it from direct observation. For example, starting more than 100 years ago, astronomers first postulated its existence (That's not correct they postulated the existence of a planet 5500 times the mass of Pluto, I explain in more detail later) and began estimating its mass by assuming it was responsible for observed perturbations of the orbits of Neptune and Uranus. Succeeding estimates of mass were made by astronomers such as Pickering, Lowell, Nicholson, Mayall, Eckert, Brouwer and Clemence, with the latest estimate being made in 1978 by Christy and Harrington. At the recent meeting of the 50th Anniversary of the Discovery of Pluto, R. L. Duncombe and P. K. Seidelman assembled these earlier estimates of the mass of Pluto. We have plotted these (see figure), starting with the estimate by J. Babinel in 1848 which gave Pluto a mass 12 times that of Earth. The graph clearly illustrates that while Pluto was sighted in 1930, it was slighted (mass estimates significantly reduced) in the 1970’s. |
|
Dessler/Russell (1980) created the above chart while Lund (2015) produced the below table of the estimated mass of Pluto over time.
|
Prior to Pluto's discovery in 1930 and based solely on the perturbed orbits of Neptune and Uranus, Pluto was estimated to be 2, 4, 5.5, 6.7, 8.8, and 12 times the mass of Earth. In 1989 Binzel calculated Pluto's mass to be 0.0021655009 percent of Earth's mass which is pretty close to what we estimate it to be since the New Horizons flyby which is 0.00218 Earth's mass. What changed in 1989 that so radically altered our perception of Pluto's mass? Mutual occultation! |
|
Pluto and Charon passed in front of each other as we viewed their orbits. This allowed for a much more accurate mass estimate consequently the estimates changed drastically from prior to that time but since 1989 all Pluto mass estimates have been very small and are relatively closely matched. In 1980 Dessler and Russell and their predecessors didn't have mutual occultation sighting events to draw from.
This is a basic shift in knowledge not a basic change in Pluto's actual mass. In Dessler's chart I circled the group of astronomers that predicted Pluto's mass prior to its discovery in 1930 by calculated perturbations in Neptune and Uranus' orbit. I also circled the group of astronomers that calculated its mass shortly after its actual discovery. These pre and post Pluto discovery scientists cluster together in there mass estimations but differ significantly from group to group. And both groups differ significantly from Pluto's actual mass. Pluto's mass isn't changing significantly over time, our understanding of its mass is improving over time hence our estimates of its mass are becoming more accurate. The graph is more a plot of our ignorance over time than a plot of Pluto's actual mass over time.
Let us argue that these mass estimates should be taken seriously: it is difficult to ignore these many careful analyses made by so many eminent astronomers. We argue that they are not wildly in error: notice that the points are not scattered but follow a definite systematic trend. We are only prudent when we conclude that these earlier mass estimates are largely correct: we treat these data with the respect that the effort that went into obtaining them warrants. (We argue that because mathematicians before us were wrong we should follow their example? Hmmm! Oooook, lets see where this rabbit hole of follow the plot of ignorance takes us.). The consequence of following this chain of logic is to reach a most spectacular (and incorrect) conclusion.
This is a basic shift in knowledge not a basic change in Pluto's actual mass. In Dessler's chart I circled the group of astronomers that predicted Pluto's mass prior to its discovery in 1930 by calculated perturbations in Neptune and Uranus' orbit. I also circled the group of astronomers that calculated its mass shortly after its actual discovery. These pre and post Pluto discovery scientists cluster together in there mass estimations but differ significantly from group to group. And both groups differ significantly from Pluto's actual mass. Pluto's mass isn't changing significantly over time, our understanding of its mass is improving over time hence our estimates of its mass are becoming more accurate. The graph is more a plot of our ignorance over time than a plot of Pluto's actual mass over time.
Let us argue that these mass estimates should be taken seriously: it is difficult to ignore these many careful analyses made by so many eminent astronomers. We argue that they are not wildly in error: notice that the points are not scattered but follow a definite systematic trend. We are only prudent when we conclude that these earlier mass estimates are largely correct: we treat these data with the respect that the effort that went into obtaining them warrants. (We argue that because mathematicians before us were wrong we should follow their example? Hmmm! Oooook, lets see where this rabbit hole of follow the plot of ignorance takes us.). The consequence of following this chain of logic is to reach a most spectacular (and incorrect) conclusion.
|
The plot of mass versus time clearly indicates the impending disappearance of Pluto!
The mass of Pluto as a function of time is fit by a cosine function raised to the pi power. (cosine raised to pi, got it but what about linear and quadratic functions (not to worry, Lund's got that covered), just trust the cosine to pi function) It shows that Pluto’s mass was first estimated when it was near its heaviest, and its mass has been dropping alarmingly during the past few years. (pi nearly exactly predicts the year and month Lund will submit his paper in support of Dessler. Coincidence or is cosine to the pi a voodoo magic formula?) |
As one might have guessed. It is scheduled to disappear in 1984, a year in which other ominous things are supposed to take place (Yep, that would have been my first guess). This event may be welcomed by those of us who have been yearning for the “good old (pre-Pluto) days’ when planetary orbits were circular; we will no longer have to tolerate Pluto’s eccentricities. On the other hand, those of you interested in observing Pluto should hurry. (you don't want to miss this disappearing act)
("Nineteen Eighty Four" 1984 is a reference to the then popular George Orwell novel ---Wiki says: In the novel, Great Britain ("Airstrip One") has become a province of a superstate named Oceania. Oceania is ruled by the "Party", who employ the "Thought Police" to persecute individualism and independent thinking. The Party's leader is Big Brother, who enjoys an intense cult of personality but may not even exist.
("Nineteen Eighty Four" 1984 is a reference to the then popular George Orwell novel ---Wiki says: In the novel, Great Britain ("Airstrip One") has become a province of a superstate named Oceania. Oceania is ruled by the "Party", who employ the "Thought Police" to persecute individualism and independent thinking. The Party's leader is Big Brother, who enjoys an intense cult of personality but may not even exist.
|
If we use our equation to extrapolate forward past 1984, we see that more interesting things are in store. (hang on to your hats people this ride down insanity lane is just getting started)
After 1984, the cosine function is negative, and we all know that a negative number raised to an irrational power is Complex! That is, Pluto reappears, but with a complex mass. (you say complex, I say crazy but why split hares in this rabbit hole?) The real part of this complex number is negative. While this idea may seem repellant to some (Nahhh please do gone on with your fabricated nonsense, I'm sooo intrigued), Pluto will be repellant to everything at this point (Pluto becomes an antigravity machine, please do tell I'm on the edge of my seat). The mass also has an imaginary part (just like the imaginary math that led us here), but we can’t imagine what effect this might have (that's because we are in Alice's Wonder Land now playing with math as though its reality). |
|
Pluto will reappear (poof science, hurray Pluto's back) as a real planet in 2256; this is a fortuitous time (please go on, I have faith as a child and this is the best bedtime story I've heard all year), for by then, the space shuttle will have become operational, and we will have the opportunity to institute a new planetary observation program by launching the Space Telescope. Pluto’s mass will then be increasing rapidly until it once again reaches 12 Earth masses in the year 2392 (so this is what cosine raised to pi indicates, interesting. In a mere 136 years (Half of a Pluto year) Pluto will go from non existent anti gravity negative mass to 12 times the size of Earth, that's some powerful bullshit math right there folks).
This is what math can do to an otherwise seemingly intelligent person. Run your numbers, believe your graphs, charts, models, draw your fantastic and ridiculous conclusions based on your formulas and voila along comes puff science, Pluto disappears then puff reappears then grows 12 times more massive than Earth in half a Pluto season (and I thought flat Earther's were crazy). Pluto goes from antigravity to reappearing in 2256 and grows to 12 Earth masses by 2392 (136 years). I may have made some mistakes while writing this web site because of a lack of knowledge but come on, this is absolute insanity. This is supposed to be believable math based science because its presented by professor's of Space Physics and Astronomy within the American Association of the Advancement of Science, Royal Astronomical Society at Rice University and UCLA.
The more fantastic and delusional the concept, the more easily it seems to be accepted.
Case in point, Alan Stern quote.
Might ET be buried under too much ice to phone Earth? That’s what planetary scientist Alan Stern..., has concluded may be delaying our contact with alien civilizations. Most extraterrestrial creatures are likely deep inside their home planets, in subsurface oceans crusted over in frozen water ice... The hypothesis could explain the lack of signals from other technologically advanced civilizations.., Perhaps the equivalent of their “space program” would simply be boring through to the frozen surface of their planet, Stern suggests.
Below is a blue dot in our galaxy that represents the distance radio waves traveling at the speed of light could have migrated outward from Earth in the past 200 years.
This is what math can do to an otherwise seemingly intelligent person. Run your numbers, believe your graphs, charts, models, draw your fantastic and ridiculous conclusions based on your formulas and voila along comes puff science, Pluto disappears then puff reappears then grows 12 times more massive than Earth in half a Pluto season (and I thought flat Earther's were crazy). Pluto goes from antigravity to reappearing in 2256 and grows to 12 Earth masses by 2392 (136 years). I may have made some mistakes while writing this web site because of a lack of knowledge but come on, this is absolute insanity. This is supposed to be believable math based science because its presented by professor's of Space Physics and Astronomy within the American Association of the Advancement of Science, Royal Astronomical Society at Rice University and UCLA.
The more fantastic and delusional the concept, the more easily it seems to be accepted.
Case in point, Alan Stern quote.
Might ET be buried under too much ice to phone Earth? That’s what planetary scientist Alan Stern..., has concluded may be delaying our contact with alien civilizations. Most extraterrestrial creatures are likely deep inside their home planets, in subsurface oceans crusted over in frozen water ice... The hypothesis could explain the lack of signals from other technologically advanced civilizations.., Perhaps the equivalent of their “space program” would simply be boring through to the frozen surface of their planet, Stern suggests.
Below is a blue dot in our galaxy that represents the distance radio waves traveling at the speed of light could have migrated outward from Earth in the past 200 years.
The size our our local galaxy with a blue dot representing how far radio signals could travel in 200 years
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the speed of our radio wave signal's ability along with those of potential aliens might not have had enough time to travel such great distances as exist in our galaxy to reach other potential intelligent life?
How do you apply logic to argue with this kind of non-science (nonsense)? I mean, after all, they are smart number crunching scientists. Me, I only have common sense on my side and some basic math skills. I do, however, have other weapons in my arsenal, such as documented proof of their idiocy and a reasoning thinking brain.
How do you apply logic to argue with this kind of non-science (nonsense)? I mean, after all, they are smart number crunching scientists. Me, I only have common sense on my side and some basic math skills. I do, however, have other weapons in my arsenal, such as documented proof of their idiocy and a reasoning thinking brain.
|
Back to the Dessler/Russell circus act
One can push mathematical extrapolations too far (You think? Don't get down on yourself guys you're doing fine). Perhaps Pluto will not go negative (Why not? In math a double negative makes a positive perhaps this is how Pluto reappears, two antigravity negative nonexistent massless objects collide and create a positive mass, makes sense to me after all we're in Alice's rabbit hole aren't we?); perhaps there is a physical explanation for this disappearing act (of course there is, its called poof science or is that spoof science?). |
Velikovsky postulated that Venus was once a comet. (Despite claims to the contrary by reputable scientists, we can’t prove Velikovsky wrong (Really? OK lets think real hard guys, comets are icy bodies that evaporate away their volatile ices creating a coma as they near the Sun in extremely elliptical orbits, Venus is a super heated furnace that orbits the Sun in a near perfect circle which is two and a half times more circular than Earth's orbit and it has a density of 5.243 making it primarily rock and iron not volatile ices).
|
While spacecraft have visited Venus, they have never visited a comet.) (Uh! We have now, (comet 67P) and guess what? Venus is not a comet)
Pluto may be a comet also – a fresh one, since it was sighted for the first time only in 1930. (what the hell are they implying now, that since we only spotted Pluto in 1930 it didn't exist prior to that, therefore its a fresh comet?) We know fresh comets ablate (evaporate/sublimate) as they approach the sun, for that is how cometary tails are born. (Yea! So you do know what a comet is after all.) |
|
Pluto has also been approaching the sun (but doesn't get closer than 29.6 AU which is way beyond the 3 AU frost line). It is now inside the orbit of Neptune, merrily evaporating away. (at the same rate as Earth's atmosphere, does that make Earth a comet?).
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is presently contemplating (which is a lot cheaper than planning, which in turn is much cheaper than building) a Halley Intercept Mission (HIM). The rationale for going to Halley now despite the backlog of missions developing in the pipeline because of NASA’s inability to get new missions approved (BMDPBNIGNMA) is that Halley will not return for 76 years. However, Pluto may never return! (It also may never disappear, oh! I'm sorry, I forgot about that cosine function) Even if we believe our conservative mathematical estimate (which conserves Pluto) (hey lets not get conservative now just when you're on such a retarded roll), Pluto will not become real again for 272 years (I need to go watch Penn and Teller, their poof magic is more believable than this idiocy), and who knows where it will reappear after being repellant for so long (behind magic curtain number 2?).
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is presently contemplating (which is a lot cheaper than planning, which in turn is much cheaper than building) a Halley Intercept Mission (HIM). The rationale for going to Halley now despite the backlog of missions developing in the pipeline because of NASA’s inability to get new missions approved (BMDPBNIGNMA) is that Halley will not return for 76 years. However, Pluto may never return! (It also may never disappear, oh! I'm sorry, I forgot about that cosine function) Even if we believe our conservative mathematical estimate (which conserves Pluto) (hey lets not get conservative now just when you're on such a retarded roll), Pluto will not become real again for 272 years (I need to go watch Penn and Teller, their poof magic is more believable than this idiocy), and who knows where it will reappear after being repellant for so long (behind magic curtain number 2?).
NASA should redirect its priorities immediately (if I was the head of NASA, I'd take this shit serious and immediately redirect all my priorities) and develop mission Ploto (Positively Last Opportunity to Observe) to Pluto. (I've got a better acronym (Positively lame outlandish tactless observations) (We note that this name gets us off the hook (I'm afraid you're off your rocker not just off the hook) if someone discovers a way to negatively observe Pluto (wait a minute, negative vision, why didn't I think of that, that's brilliant perhaps then we would be able to see that cosine function). In the present environment, keeping off the hook has a certain intrinsic appeal (Not to worry guys, I think you are completely off the hook) to mission planners,) (These two have completely lost touch with reality as they buried their heads up their masses wasting formulas and pulled out a unicorn called a cosine raised to pi function.)
In closing (THANK GOD! finally), we should emphasize that a few years ago astronomers would have said these early mass estimates were ridiculous. (And a few years later, I'm saying the same thing, RIDICULOUS!) However, the present evidence suggests that Pluto is simply evaporating with time (what evidence? Oops, I forgot that dang cosine function). Clearly, theories about Pluto have gone from the ridiculous (to this one which is absurd) to the sublime.
I've read some pretty stupid shit but this tops the list. The disconnect with reality comes with believing numbers and formulas are accurate reflections of reality then transposing those fantasy numbers onto life as though they define and confine life, the other problem comes from neglecting to consider other factors like density, distance, sunlight radiation, chemical composition, temperature etc... and thinking math can account for all these interactive processes. If Pluto is more dense than water then its made of rocky material and so while volatile ices like nitrogen and methane may evaporate away, rock and metal don't and for that matter neither does water ice at Pluto temperatures and distances from the Sun.
Lund quote 2015 supporting the Pluto mass wasting science concept purported by Dessler and Russell.
Lund submitted his paper 3 months prior to our arrival at Pluto.
Since its discovery in 1930, Pluto’s mass has been a value that has repeatedly been calculated (praise the almighty calculation). Additionally, the search for Planet X prior to Pluto’s discovery results in mass calculations that date back several decades earlier. Over its observed history, the mass of Pluto has consistently decreased (again with the pseudo science).
In closing (THANK GOD! finally), we should emphasize that a few years ago astronomers would have said these early mass estimates were ridiculous. (And a few years later, I'm saying the same thing, RIDICULOUS!) However, the present evidence suggests that Pluto is simply evaporating with time (what evidence? Oops, I forgot that dang cosine function). Clearly, theories about Pluto have gone from the ridiculous (to this one which is absurd) to the sublime.
I've read some pretty stupid shit but this tops the list. The disconnect with reality comes with believing numbers and formulas are accurate reflections of reality then transposing those fantasy numbers onto life as though they define and confine life, the other problem comes from neglecting to consider other factors like density, distance, sunlight radiation, chemical composition, temperature etc... and thinking math can account for all these interactive processes. If Pluto is more dense than water then its made of rocky material and so while volatile ices like nitrogen and methane may evaporate away, rock and metal don't and for that matter neither does water ice at Pluto temperatures and distances from the Sun.
Lund quote 2015 supporting the Pluto mass wasting science concept purported by Dessler and Russell.
Lund submitted his paper 3 months prior to our arrival at Pluto.
Since its discovery in 1930, Pluto’s mass has been a value that has repeatedly been calculated (praise the almighty calculation). Additionally, the search for Planet X prior to Pluto’s discovery results in mass calculations that date back several decades earlier. Over its observed history, the mass of Pluto has consistently decreased (again with the pseudo science).
|
We reassess earlier predictions of Pluto’s fate, and rule out the hypothesis that Pluto’s mass has been constant over the last century. (Hmmm let me guess, cosine function?)
We are able to fit linear and quadratic equations (whew for a minute there I thought they were going to use the cosine function) to Pluto’s mass as a function of both time and distance. The observations that will be made by New Horizons will help to determine (Just how dumb you truly are?) if we can expect Pluto to continue to shrink until it has negative mass, or if it will begin to increase in mass again. |
|
No doubt Lund wanted to be acknowledged as someone that could read the math of Pluto like tarot cards divining the mysteries of Pluto before we got there. Apparently this is the holy grail for scientists, this is how they become (in their minds) the profits and seers of the future, the wise magi that interpret the heavens and divine knowledge and truth from models and mathematical formulas.
|
The fact is, these people show themselves as the charlatans (quacks) they often are.
I need to distinguish between real experimental/observational science and theoretical mathematical science as the two are as opposite as night and day. Experimental science like that of Hogenboom is based on repeatable experimental results and careful observations and is a science worthy of respect. Math, on the one hand, can help our comprehension in many ways, but on the other hand can also with one single digit (along with one dipstick) lead us into Alice's rabbit hole where math fact is nothing but a fantasy of the mind. |
|
Take for example the theoretical impactor that created Sputnik Planitia (SP) which physically couldn't possess enough mass to excavate a crater the size of SP, not to mention the delusional subsequent processes like creating an underground bulging water ocean or active geology or beaches or an inverted heated ocean or positive gravity anomalies in a negative topography in an anti Charon facing orientation. But with one speculative motion, Stern and McKinnon have sent other scientists with their mathematical models into motion in support of this nonsense as they all chase their tails down a mathematical rabbit hole. |
|
Pluto, the massive lie
Pluto was discovered by shear chance. I know scientists want everyone to believe they calculated Pluto's location based on perturbations of Neptune and Uranus' orbit but that just isn't the case. Their calculations led them to believe that Neptune's orbit was perturbed by an object somewhere between 2 and 12 Earth masses. Pluto is 0.00218 the mass of Earth or 917 to 5505 times smaller in mass than their calculations inferred their Planet X needed to be in order to perturb Neptune's orbit. Based on this, they concluded there should be a planet 2 to 12 times the mass of Earth in a particular location in the sky. So they searched and searched for this super massive planet and stumbled onto puny Pluto.
Pluto, by chance, just happened to be in the place they were looking while seeking to locate this other multi-Earth massive planet. Pluto doesn't have the mass to do to Neptune what their calculations indicated and so was not perturbing Neptune's orbit (and certainly not Uranus' orbit) and so it was not the planet they were looking for. They simply stumbled onto Pluto, they got lucky and then they took credit for precalculating the existence and location of Pluto but this is a complete fantasy, a total false fabrication of facts created by these egotistical mathematical brainiacs.
They weren't looking for puny Pluto, they were looking for a gigantic planet multiple times the mass of Earth but since they stumbled onto Pluto they took credit for precalculating its existence, complete bullshit. Today it seems we are experiencing a similar phenomenon created by Mike Brown (self proclaimed Pluto Killer) related to a different theoretical Planet X (popularly called Planet 9). Based on the orbits of several transneptunian objects this new Planet X is theorized to be 10 Earth masses in size. While its fun to speculate and postulate new ideas, I hope we are not going down the same rabbit hole Dessler and Russell fell into in 1980.
Pluto, by chance, just happened to be in the place they were looking while seeking to locate this other multi-Earth massive planet. Pluto doesn't have the mass to do to Neptune what their calculations indicated and so was not perturbing Neptune's orbit (and certainly not Uranus' orbit) and so it was not the planet they were looking for. They simply stumbled onto Pluto, they got lucky and then they took credit for precalculating the existence and location of Pluto but this is a complete fantasy, a total false fabrication of facts created by these egotistical mathematical brainiacs.
They weren't looking for puny Pluto, they were looking for a gigantic planet multiple times the mass of Earth but since they stumbled onto Pluto they took credit for precalculating its existence, complete bullshit. Today it seems we are experiencing a similar phenomenon created by Mike Brown (self proclaimed Pluto Killer) related to a different theoretical Planet X (popularly called Planet 9). Based on the orbits of several transneptunian objects this new Planet X is theorized to be 10 Earth masses in size. While its fun to speculate and postulate new ideas, I hope we are not going down the same rabbit hole Dessler and Russell fell into in 1980.
|
Mike Brown is a smart feller (just as I'm sure, Lund, Dessler and Russell were/are) but I've read some of Brown's papers in which he makes predictions and statements that have turned out to be completely wrong.
I'm not interested in pissing in Brown's Wheaties but I'm afraid we may be traveling down the same historical road we were on in 1980 with Dessler and Russell. It wouldn't surprise me, however, if we stumble onto a new small body (much smaller than the equations would support) while looking for this new Planet X and take credit for calculating its presence in our solar system. |
There's a lot of stuff floating around the solar system that we haven't found yet so if we find another object that's much smaller than Earth it won't be validation of the fact that we precalculated its presence. It will simply mean we started looking real closely at one section of the sky and found something in that section. Brown's math and models infer an object 10 times the mass of Earth is out there in our solar system. If we find it, more power to Brown but if we find another puny object then it will once again be simple blind stupid luck along with tedious persistent observational effort. But I'm sure the science community will shower him with accolades and praise regardless of the objects mass.
Alan Stern and team originally identified the pits (holes) on Sputnik Planitia as a mass wasting process until they read my Sastrugi page then stole credit for my observations related to these same pits being formed as wind blown ripples or dunes. After reading my Sastrugi page, they did pull their head out of their collective masses wasting pit holes so at least there is some slow growth in this speculative scientific process. Once upon a time when I knew very little about Pluto, I tip toed around these scientists' hypotheses. The more I've come to understand, the less tolerant I am of their speculative nonsense, after all, these are supposed to be scientists.
Alan Stern and team originally identified the pits (holes) on Sputnik Planitia as a mass wasting process until they read my Sastrugi page then stole credit for my observations related to these same pits being formed as wind blown ripples or dunes. After reading my Sastrugi page, they did pull their head out of their collective masses wasting pit holes so at least there is some slow growth in this speculative scientific process. Once upon a time when I knew very little about Pluto, I tip toed around these scientists' hypotheses. The more I've come to understand, the less tolerant I am of their speculative nonsense, after all, these are supposed to be scientists.
|
When a scientist knows that a 150 to 250 km spherical impactor striking Pluto at a 60 degree angle couldn't possibly defy the laws of physics and excavate 1300 x 900 x 150 km of material to create SP with some flat beaches nor could it form a bulge in a subsurface ocean or a positive gravity anomaly with an incorrect alignment with Charon yet present these ideas to an otherwise trusting world as a plausible scenario seems irresponsible at best.
I find it more than annoying its frustrating and angering. To me, Stern and McKinnon sound a lot like Dessler and Russell, who were completely off their rocker with their mathematical nonsense and grossly irresponsible, incomplete and irrational assertions. |
|
Speculators of Planet X's existence in 1848 wanted Pluto to be nearly Neptune sized but since it wasn't, scientists came up with a concept called mass wasting to cover their errant asses (sorry I meant masses). By the time we actually had a clue about Pluto's actual mass some really ridiculous pseudo science claims had already been postulated. On this web site I've been pointing out how some similar ridiculous pseudo science Pluto claims are currently still being presented. Just because everybody gets in line with Stern's speculations doesn't make it any more correct than the paper written by Dessler and Russell.
I respect experimental, observational and well reasoned science (like that of Hogenboom) not speculative outlandish mathematically driven dribble presented as science. Read, learn and reason for yourself if something triggers your bullshit meter, research it don't just accept it, these scientists don't have some magic knowledge that supersedes your own. As a matter of fact, when it comes to common sense they often don't know their head from their mathematical masses.
Nikola Tesla said it best
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality... The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane."
I'll finish with the last line of the below video by Richard Feynman
I respect experimental, observational and well reasoned science (like that of Hogenboom) not speculative outlandish mathematically driven dribble presented as science. Read, learn and reason for yourself if something triggers your bullshit meter, research it don't just accept it, these scientists don't have some magic knowledge that supersedes your own. As a matter of fact, when it comes to common sense they often don't know their head from their mathematical masses.
Nikola Tesla said it best
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality... The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane."
I'll finish with the last line of the below video by Richard Feynman
You have to learn to know when you know
and
when you don't know
and
what it is you know
and
what it is you don't know
you've got to be very careful not to confuse yourself
and
when you don't know
and
what it is you know
and
what it is you don't know
you've got to be very careful not to confuse yourself